Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

comment made by a judge regarding motorcyle riders.

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by twainharte, Apr 26, 2007.

  1. not sure where to put this.

    [MOD] Politics, laws and Goverment - joel :cool:

    this post is NOT about the accident. it's about a comment made by a judge regarding motorcyle riders. just because it happened half a world away does not mean it's irrelevant.


  2. Noone is entirely at fault in an accident unless it is a single vehicle accident (ie veering off the road into a tree). The reasoning for this is that if the person "in the right" wasn't there at all, the accident probably wouldn't have happened.

    Its a bit harsh what was said, but IMO it applies to all multi-vehicle crashes, regardless of what is being driven/ridden.
  3. <shakes head>
    What about getting rear-ended?
  4. The arguement would be that he contributed to his own injuries by choosing to ride a motorbike. Had he chosen the safer, car option, his injuries would likely be less severe.
  5. If you were not there (on the road) then the accident in all reality may not have happened, or it may have been someone else involved. So there is your 5% at fault in a rear ender. :)
  6. Extrapolating that, when a car driver receives compensation I expect a huge amount would be deducted because they drove a car, as walking would be far be the safest option. Of course, when the pedestrian receives their compensation I expect some to be deducted as they should have stayed in bed.

    A rocky and slippery road to travel.
  7. Although it is not actually a judges' comment (which may bring a little sanity to a judicial system) the comment is from the victims own lawyer!!!!!

    Go figure!
  8. Cejay, that's not opinion, it's fact, right or wrong in yours and my eyes, that's how it works here in Vic. Been there done that. :wink:
  9. Not arguing with that, contributory negligence is always taken into account in an accident when apportioning compensation. But are you telling me that in Victoria there has been a case where a judge has decided to change the amount of money awarded based on the person riding a motorcycle? What you seem to be saying is that riding a motorbike is a negligent act as it exposes you to more danger. If so, the same would apply to people who drive cars without airbags, ABS, AWD, SIP etc..
  10. I see your point, and I doubt any judge is going to see a difference between a car with or without airbags.
  11. i was deamed 100% not at fault by the police and all insurance companies... yet they wont pay to fix my bike... :cry:
  12. Sorry, I can't agree there. I have been rear-ended twice in cars over the years, both times got 100% no-fault payout. When I was bowled over by a 4WD on my Triumph Sprint in 2002, again 100% no-fault payout. Mind you, that time the moron was charged with culpable driving.
  13. My experience has been that the baseline from which they (law / insurers) operate is that each party is apportioned part of the bame. But it's only a baseline, and decisions can favour one or the other party more or less depending on circumstances.

    Perhaps those who had rear-enders with no fault to them are in different situations to the original example, of a moving motorcycle cut off by a car.

    The lawyers comment to me, sounded like a backhander to the judiciary, scoffing at the ridiculous nature of the decision - that's how I read it.
  14. +1 to vanman's comment, thats how it looks to me too.

    just a question ward_4e, was the driver that struck you drunk at the time? becuase that issue struck me the other day when a mate was rear ended by a drunk driver. if this happened, (and yes i realise its fraud) wouldnt it be best for both parties not to involve the police, since a drunk driver is not covered by any insurance(provided they have comp insurance). they dont loose their license for 6 months, you get the money to replace your bike. it would be a hell of alot simpler than pursuing the civil action side. thats assuming of coarse you dont get sent to hospital, in which case the police have to be involved.

  15. https://netrider.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31920&start=0 :wink:
  16. Thats actually not 100% correct. The payout could (not would) be adjusted for contributary negligence, but its up to the Respondent (Insurance Co. for example) to admit the evidence and prove their case that the Plaintiff was at fault in some way.
  17. So wait.... let me see if i have this right. (pls correct me if i dont)

    For just being there you are somewhat responsible? Even 5% or something?

    Honestly, i dont know if im the only one that thinks this way but what total BS!

    You are 100% entitled to be there or to ride a bike, how the hell is it your fault?

    Its pretty obvious that if you wernt there, the accident wouldn't have happened. Just like in a **** or a murder, if the victim wasn't there, it wouldn't have happened.

    But try telling those people or there families that its there fault, even 5%, what total BS in my opinion.

    Like i said, correct me if im wrong but what a stupid judge!
  18. im glad there's no jury at my CTP case.

    they got rid of them because the pretty cripples got heaps of money and the ugly fat ones got next to nothing.
  19. Not your fault. But you contributed to it by making the choice to ride/drive on a public street which is clearly a risky thing to do. I'm not saying it's right either by the way. Just saying how it is justified in the eyes of the law.

    TAC aren't making massive profits for no reason!
  20. Nah - it's a different thing here. Crime perpetrated in a violent manner against a person is a totally seperate part of law and shouldn't really be held up as a comparison for vehicle law.

    I guess if you had to use a comparison of this nature, try vehicular manslaughter or something - you know, murdering or attempting to murder a person using a car, where the intent was formed. I doubt a 5% blame would be apportioned to the victim in this circumstance.

    Furthermore (and I'm not a lawyer, so may have this slightly wrong), there are terms like "provoked assault" which implies that, whilst you were wrong in assaulting a person, you did so with the belief you were in mortal danger at the time. I'm probably digressing, suffice it to say that the 5% (or whatever it is) portion of blame baseline makes sense to me.